Telangana High Court
Christine Noerla Rani vs State Of Telangana Rep By P.P on 25 July, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11291 OF 2017
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A4 to quash S.C.No.229 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The facts in brief, as can be gathered from the material placed before the Court, are as under:
3. Originally, father of the victim used to work in the electricity department. She has three sisters. Her father died in an electric transformer accident when the victim was three years old. On account of untimely death of her father, the family was totally disturbed, her mother was addicted to alcohol and did not take care of her family. Two years thereafter, the victim's mother took them to Tandur town and left all the children before their relatives. All of them were admitted in social welfare residential school. The victim was also admitted in the same school in first class. During the vacation, her mother took her to Hyderabad and put her in the house of A1 and A2 in CBIT colony to take care of their handicapped son. 2 For about four months, the victims mother has collected Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- per month from A1 and A2 and later she did not come back. Six years thereafter, the victim was informed that her mother died, but she was not allowed to go and see the dead body or contact with any other person. She spent almost 15 years in the house of A1 and A2 in slavery condition without any pay. After she has grown up, A3, who is the son of A1 and A2 and two years older than the victim, started sleeping her bed side frequently at night, used to touch her legs and kiss her. The victim used to feel very uncomfortable and wanted to tell the other family members, but she was afraid of on account of helpless condition.
4. One day she met her neighbour by name Shilpa and informed about her sufference. The said Shilpa told her to go some where and work. After few days, Shilpa relatives by name Sharmila and Rani came there and told that they would pay Rs.3,000/- per month for cooking at Mysore. As the victim wanted to get out of the house where she is staying, on 07.12.2015, she went to Shilpa's house from where Sharmila 3 took her to her uncle's house. On 08.12.2015 at 6.00 a.m. the victim was taken to Bangalore and from there to Mysore.
5. On 08.12.2015, A1 filed a complaint before the police stating that his daughter/victim left the home without any intimation on which a case in Crime No.1427 of 2015 as woman missing was registered at Rajendranagar Police Station.
6. In Mysore, the victim's situation has become worse. The petitioner herein/A4, was running a paying guest house for accommodating the foreigners. The victim made to work in the said guest house right from morning till evening. She was asked to clean all 8 rooms with attached bathrooms, to cook food and attend all household works, including washing of clothes. After two days when Sharmila went there, the victim complained about the work and wanted her to take back, but, said Sharmila refused. She was being taken to church by the petitioner/A4 and used to insist her to change the religion from Hindu to Christian. The petitioner used to beat her indiscriminately. In the year 2015, the petitioner went to Irland with her sister. While going, she beat victim and told her to keep the house clean. There was nothing in the house to eat. 4 The petitioner gave her Rs.10/- and told her to buy some leafy vegetables.
7. A paying guest from England, who rented a room for 10 days, on observing that the victim was not having proper food, has brought some fruits to her as food. The victim told her problem and requested the said guest to help for her escape. The said guest has contacted NGO Odinadi Seva Samstha who informed the police V.V. Puram, Mysore on which police have rescued the victim and kept the victim in a NGO for rehabilitation.
8. The police Mysore on realizing that the victim is from Hyderabad have informed Prajwala, NGO in Hyderabad. The said Prajwala conducted enquiries and came to know that a missing case was registered at Rajendranagar Police Station and approached A1, but he has given evasive answers. The Director of the Prajwala has approached the DGP, Telangala, requesting him to enquire about interstate trafficking angle in this issue on which the case was transferred from Rajendranagar Police Station to CID.
5
9. The CID police after converting the section of law, recorded the statement of victim and also circumstantial witnesses of Mysore as LWs.2 and 3 and also one Shilpa, the friend of A1's family to whom the victim has initially informed about the harassment of A1 to A3 and also examined the other witnesses. The police have also examined the in-charge of Odinadi NGO Seva Samstha from Mysore and also examined the medical professor, who has given the age determination certificate belonging to the victim, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed alleging that A1 and A2 have committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 344, 370(i)(a)(iv), 374 IPC, Section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, whereas A3 was charged sheeted for the offences under Section 354-A(i) and (ii) IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, whereas against the petitioner/A4 the offences alleged are under Sections 323, 344, 370(1)(a)(iv) and 374 IPC. Accordingly, the Court has taken 6 cognizance of the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A4 has filed the quash petition on the following grounds:
A. The petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The victim came to the house of the petitioner willingly along with her friend and stayed with them without any force. B. That The police Mysore investigated all the allegations levelled against the petitioner and found them to be false thereby filed a final report closing the FIR on 21.05.2016 vide report No.NO/NR/17/2016 stating that the victim was major and there were no wounds and that the petitioner/A4 was taking proper care of the victim. Once the complaint registered against the petitioner in Crime No.55 of 2016 was closed by the Mysore police, again the CID, Hyderabad cannot investigate the case.
C. It is stated that though she has filed Crl.P.No.17206 of 2016 for quashment of FIR, during the pendency of that petition, the police have completed the investigation and filed 7 charge sheet, thereby the said petition has become infructuous and thereafter the present petition is filed to quash the charge sheet filed against her.
11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted strenuously that there is ample material before the Court in the form of complaint and in the form of statements of witnesses that the petitioner/A4 used to harass the victim, exploit her and made her to do work forcibly from morning to evening, like cleaning the washrooms, cooking the food, washing the clothes, but she was not given food and not paid the remuneration and hence, submitted that she is not entitled to the relief sought for and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.
12. Heard both sides and perused the record.
13. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings in S.C.No.229 of 2017 against the petitioner/A4 can be quashed?
14. The case of the police in nutshell is that A1 and A2 have taken the victim when she was 4 or 5 years old in order to assist their handicapped son and she stayed there for more 8 than 10 years during which time, her services were exploited without making any payment and their son/A3 has exploited her sexually. The petitioner/A4 started harassing the victim, exploited her mentally and physically and used to harass her to work right from morning till evening and made her to clean the rooms, toilets, cook food, wash clothes of paying guests without paying any amount and that when the petitioner/A4 went to other country, victim was given only Rs.10/- and has not kept the food available to her.
15. The petitioner/A-4 is seeking quashment of the charge sheet mainly on two grounds. The petitioner/A4 is seeking quashment of the charge sheet stating that the FIR registered against her in Mysore in Crime No.55 of 2016 was investigated by the Mysore Police in respect of the allegations leveled against her and after full-fledged enquiry the police found the petitioner/A-4 not guilty of any alleged offence and closed the FIR. Therefore, the CID, Hyderabad cannot again re-investigate the matter.
16. The record filed before the Court would go to show that police Mysore have investigated the allegations leveled against 9 the petitioner and closed the case. However, the statement of the victim recorded by the CID Police, Hyderabad and also the statement of the other circumstantial evidence like the NGOs and others, who rescued the victim, would certainly go to show that the petitioner beat the victim to work in her paying guest house in cleaning the rooms, wash rooms, washing the cloths, preparing the food and when she went for abroad, she has given Rs.10/- for victim's food and asked her to buy leafy vegetables and it is also alleged that she used to beat her with whatever article found in the vicinity. Therefore, these things would demonstrate that there is prima facie material against the petitioner to proceed with the offences alleged. Therefore, though the police Mysore have done investigation, the statements recorded by the CID clearly establish that the petitioner has exploited the victim and also harassed her physically and mentally.
17. It is not the case of the petitioner that she used to pay money every month to the victim. The petitioner has not explained even in this petition as to in what capacity she has kept the victim in her house. If the victim is working in the 10 house, she was supposed to pay some remuneration as the victim is not her relative and no way connected to her. The victim belongs to Hyderabad, Telangana and the incident in respect of the petitioner/A4 allegedly took place in Mysore. On the other hand, there is clear evidence collected by the police that the petitioner/A4 has harassed the victim. Truth or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses would be clear only during the course of trial.
18. If really the police Mysore have properly investigated the case, if really, as stated by the petitioner/A4, there is no material against her to proceed with the case, the petitioner has to explain how the statements of the victim and other circumstantial witnesses recorded by the CID Police are against the petitioner/A4. Therefore, when there are serious allegations against the petitioner/A4, on the simple ground that the police Mysore has completed the investigation and closed the case, thereby the charge sheet against the petitioner/A4 has to be quashed.
19. Further, the lapse in the investigation of Mysore police is apparent. They did not get the statement of the victim under 11 Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded before the learned Magistrate at Mysore. Further, the police Mysore did not visit Hyderabad to record the statements of persons, who have sent the victim to Mysore. The police Mysore have not investigated in the angle as to how and in what capacity the victim was residing in the house of the petitioner/A4 and further the medical certificate issued by the doctors in Mysore would go to show that the victim is a major, however the medical certificate issued in Hyderabad would go to show that the victim is a minor. Therefore, factually, the investigation of CID Police, Hyderabad is much wider than the investigation done by the police of Mysore.
20. Further, the petitioner/A4 has not filed this complaint to quash the investigation of the police at FIR stage. She could have taken steps to disposal of criminal petition when investigation was in progress on the ground that the crime was already investigated by the Mysore police thereby another case cannot be registered on the similar complaint. Though the petitioner/A4 has filed petition to quash the FIR, during the pendency of the same, police have completed the investigation 12 and filed the charge sheet. So charge sheet is the basis now to proceed against the petitioner/A4. The learned Magistrate after going through the records, material available before the Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner/A4 as well for various offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court and it is coming for framing of the charges. Therefore, when the charge sheet is filed, apparently, there is a prima facie material more than one ways against the petitioner/A4. Simply on the ground that the crime against the petitioner in Mysore was closed, without filing charge sheet, this charge sheet against the petitioner where there is strong evidence cannot be quashed.
21. Further, the police Mysore has closed Crime No.55 of 2016 registered against the petitioner/A4. Even if the investigation of police of Mysore was in correct lines, it has to be considered only so far as the FIR registered in Mysore. It has to be considered that since there was no prima facie material against the petitioner/A4, police Mysore might have closed the case. But, if police CID, Hyderabad finds material against the petitioner/A4 that she has committed cognizable 13 offence, certainly investigation of police has to be taken into consideration and since cognizance was also taken against the petitioner/A4, she has to face the trial.
22. The petitioner/A-4 was charged for the offences under Sections 323, 344, 370 (1) (a) (iv) and 374 IPC.
23. Section 323 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt. In the case on hand, it is the statement of the victim and also other circumstantial evidence that the petitioner used to beat the victim indiscriminately. It is also on record that the petitioner used to beat the victim indiscriminately with whatever article available in the vicinity, sometimes with a belt.
24. The other offence leveled against the petitioner is that she has committed the offence punishable under Section 344 IPC. In order to prove the offence under Section 344 IPC i.e., wrongful confinement for more than ten days, the prosecution is expected to prove that the petitioner has restrained the victim preventing her from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits of more than ten days.
14
25. In the case on hand, it is stated by the victim clearly that the petitioner used to run paying guest accommodation and used to wake up the victim at 5.00 a.m. and used to attend all the works including food, doing massage to the petitioner, cleaning the 8 rooms, cleaning the wash rooms, cleaning the toilets with hands. She never used to give any money and in case if any guests used to give some tips like Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- even that money also the petitioner used to take by saying that she will put the entire money in the Bank, but she never used to do so. The petitioner used to beat her with a belt and used to cry her, never used to allow her to speak to others, petitioner used to tell her friends, who used to come to her house, to beat the victim with cheppal and finally the petitioner never allowed the victim to go out of the premises and talk to anybody. The facts narrated by the victim in her statement would clearly go to show that the petitioner has confined her wrongfully.
26. The other offence alleged against the petitioner is 370 (1)
(a) (4), IPC, which deals with offence of trafficking, which reads as under:
"370. Trafficking of person 15 (1) Whoever for the purpose of exploitation
(a) Recruits (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
27. In order to prove the offence under Section 370 IPC the prosecution is expected to prove that the petitioner/A4 has taken the victim for the purpose of exploitation, using threat or force or any form of coercion or playing fraud or deception or abuse of power.
28. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim has voluntarily came to her house, therefore, there is no offence committed by her under Section 370 IPC. It is to be noted that as per the statement of the victim and as per the statement of the evidence collected by the police, the victim was taken to Mysore by saying that she would be given Rs.3,000/- per month. But, admittedly the petitioner/A4 has not paid anything to the victim. Once the petitioner is making the victim to work in her house, she is supposed to pay money or remuneration. Whatever explanation she offers, if she is not paying the remuneration and putting restriction on the victim, 16 certainly amount to exploiting the victim and though the petitioner has contended that the victim herself has come voluntarily, there is material to show that she played deception of telling the victim that they would pay money for the services rendered by her.
29. Victim has mentioned in her statement that even the tips given to her by the guests were taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even opened a bank account in the name of the victim. Except giving food, the petitioner has not given anything. Therefore, there is material to show that deception is played on the victim by the petitioner and made her to work, which certainly attracts the definition of Section 370 IPC. Further, explanation (2) of Section 370 IPC shows that the consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of offence of trafficking.
30. There is also prima facie material to show that the petitioner/A4 has compelled the victim to work as a labour against her will and as the petitioner used to beat her and encouraged her friends to beat the victim with cheppal. Therefore, these circumstances certainly would also go to show 17 that there is a prima facie material to hold that there is material against the petitioner/A4 has committed offence punishable under Section 374 IPC.
31. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 25.07.2022 ES